Search

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have revolutionized the management of cancer. They can induce immune-related adverse events (irAE) leading to intensive care unit (ICU) admission. We aimed to describe irAEs for ICU admissions in solid cancer patients treated with ICIs. Methods: This prospective multicenter study was conducted in France and Belgium. Adult patients with solid tumor and treated with systemic ICIs within the last 6 months, requiring non-programmed ICU admission were included. Patients admitted for microbiologically documented sepsis were excluded. Imputability of irAEs in ICU admissions was described according to the WHO-UMC classification system at ICU admission and at ICU discharge. The use of immunosuppressant treatment was reported. Results: 115 patients were eligible. Solid tumor was mainly lung cancer (n = 76, 66%) and melanoma (n = 18, 16%). They were mainly treated with an anti-PD-(L)1 alone (n = 110, 96%). Main ICU admission reasons were acute respiratory failure (n = 66, 57%), colitis (n = 14, 13%), and cardiovascular disease (n = 13, 11%). ICU admission was considered “likely” associated with irAE for 48% (n = 55) of patients. Factors independently associated with irAE were a good ECOG performance status (PS) (ECOG-PS of 0 or 1 vs. ECOG-PS of 2–3, odds ratio [OR] = 6.34, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 2.13–18.90, and OR = 3.66, 95% CI 1.33–10.03, respectively), and a history of irAE (OR = 3.28, 95% CI 1.19–9.01). Steroids were prescribed for 41/55 (75%) patients with ICU admission “likely” related to irAE. Three patients were subsequently treated with immunosuppressants. Conclusion: IrAEs accounted for half of ICU admissions in cancer patients receiving ICIs. They could be treated with steroids. Identifying the imputability of irAEs in ICU admissions remains a challenge., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Background: The antiviral efficacy of remdesivir in COVID-19 hospitalized patients remains controversial. Objectives: To estimate the effect of remdesivir in blocking viral replication. Methods: We analysed nasopharyngeal normalized viral loads from 665 hospitalized patients included in the DisCoVeRy trial (NCT 04315948; EudraCT 2020-000936-23), randomized to either standard of care (SoC) or SoC + remdesivir. We used a mathematical model to reconstruct viral kinetic profiles and estimate the antiviral efficacy of remdesivir in blocking viral replication. Additional analyses were conducted stratified on time of treatment initiation (≤7 or >7 days since symptom onset) or viral load at randomization (< or ≥3.5 log10 copies/104 cells). Results: In our model, remdesivir reduced viral production by infected cells by 2-fold on average (95% CI: 1.5-3.2-fold). Model-based simulations predict that remdesivir reduced time to viral clearance by 0.7 days compared with SoC, with large inter-individual variabilities (IQR: 0.0-1.3 days). Remdesivir had a larger impact in patients with high viral load at randomization, reducing viral production by 5-fold on average (95% CI: 2.8-25-fold) and the median time to viral clearance by 2.4 days (IQR: 0.9-4.5 days). Conclusions: Remdesivir halved viral production, leading to a median reduction of 0.7 days in the time to viral clearance compared with SoC. The efficacy was larger in patients with high viral load at randomization., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Background: Stress hyperglycemia can persist during an intensive care unit (ICU) stay and result in prolonged requirement for insulin (PRI). The impact of PRI on ICU patient outcomes is not known. We evaluated the relationship between PRI and Day 90 mortality in ICU patients without previous diabetic treatments. Methods: This is a post hoc analysis of the CONTROLING trial, involving 12 French ICUs. Patients in the personalized glucose control arm with an ICU length of stay ≥ 5 days and who had never previously received diabetic treatments (oral drugs or insulin) were included. Personalized blood glucose targets were estimated on their preadmission usual glycemia as estimated by their glycated A1c hemoglobin (HbA1C). PRI was defined by insulin requirement. The relationship between PRI on Day 5 and 90-day mortality was assessed by Cox survival models with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Glycemic control was defined as at least one blood glucose value below the blood glucose target value on Day 5. Results: A total of 476 patients were included, of whom 62.4% were male, with a median age of 66 (54–76) years. Median values for SAPS II and HbA1C were 50 (37.5–64) and 5.7 (5.4–6.1)%, respectively. PRI was observed in 364/476 (72.5%) patients on Day 5. 90-day mortality was 23.1% in the whole cohort, 25.3% in the PRI group and 16.1% in the non-PRI group (p < 0.01). IPTW analysis showed that PRI on Day 5 was not associated with Day 90 mortality (IPTWHR = 1.22; CI 95% 0.84–1.75; p = 0.29), whereas PRI without glycemic control was associated with an increased risk of death at Day 90 (IPTWHR = 3.34; CI 95% 1.26–8.83; p < 0.01). Conclusion: In ICU patients without previous diabetic treatments, only PRI without glycemic control on Day 5 was associated with an increased risk of death. Additional studies are required to determine the factors contributing to these results., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Previous studies unveiled a relation between the severity of COVID-19 pneumonia and obesity. The aims of this multicenter retrospective cohort study were to disentangle the association of BMI and associated metabolic risk factors (diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, current smoking) in critically ill patients with COVID-19. This multicenter retrospective cohort study enrolled patients admitted in intensive care for COVID-19, in 21 centers (Europe, Israel, USA) between 02/19/2020 and 05/19/2020. Primary and secondary outcomes were the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), and 28-day mortality. A total of 1,461 patients were enrolled, median(IQR) age was 64 years (40.9-72.0); 73.2% males; BMI 28.1 kg/m 2 (25.4-32.3); 1,080 patients (73.9%) required IMV; the 28-day mortality estimate was 36.1% (95%CI, 33.0-39.5). Adjusted mixed logistic regression model showed a significant linear relation between BMI and IMV: OR 1.27 (95%CI, 1.12-1.45) per 5 kg/m 2. Adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression model showed a significant association between BMI and mortality, which was only increased in obesity class III (≥40 kg/m 2) (HR 1.68 (95%CI 1.06-2.64). In critically ill COVID-19 patients, we observed a linear association between BMI and the need for IMV, independent of other metabolic risk factors, and a non-linear association between BMI and mortality risk. (NCT04391738).

Background: Delayed intubation is associated with high mortality. There is a lack of objective criteria to decide the time of intubation. We assessed a recently described combined oxygenation index (ROX index) to predict intubation in immunocompromised patients. The study is a secondary analysis of randomized trials in immunocompromised patients, including all patients who received high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC). The first objective was to evaluate the accuracy of the ROX index to predict intubation for patients with acute respiratory failure. Results: In the study, 302 patients received HFNC. Acute respiratory failure was mostly related to pneumonia (n = 150, 49.7%). Within 2 (1–3) days, 115 (38.1%) patients were intubated. The ICU mortality rate was 27.4% (n = 83). At 6 h, the ROX index was lower for patients who needed intubation compared with those who did not [4.79 (3.69–7.01) vs. 6.10 (4.48–8.68), p < 0.001]. The accuracy of the ROX index to predict intubation was poor [AUC = 0.623 (0.557–0.689)], with low performance using the threshold previously found (4.88). In multivariate analysis, a higher ROX index was still independently associated with a lower intubation rate (OR = 0.89 [0.82–0.96], p = 0.04). Conclusion: A ROX index greater than 4.88 appears to have a poor ability to predict intubation in immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure, although it remains highly associated with the risk of intubation and may be useful to stratify such risk in future studies., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Objective: We wished to explore the use, diagnostic capability and outcomes of bronchoscopy added to noninvasive testing in immunocompromised patients. In this setting, an inability to identify the cause of acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure is associated with worse outcome. Every effort should be made to obtain a diagnosis, either with noninvasive testing alone or combined with bronchoscopy. However, our understanding of the risks and benefits of bronchoscopy remains uncertain.Patients and methods: This was a pre-planned secondary analysis of Efraim, a prospective, multinational, observational study of 1611 immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). We compared patients with noninvasive testing only to those who had also received bronchoscopy by bivariate analysis and after propensity score matching.Results: Bronchoscopy was performed in 618 (39%) patients who were more likely to have haematological malignancy and a higher severity of illness score. Bronchoscopy alone achieved a diagnosis in 165 patients (27% adjusted diagnostic yield). Bronchoscopy resulted in a management change in 236 patients (38% therapeutic yield). Bronchoscopy was associated with worsening of respiratory status in 69 (11%) patients. Bronchoscopy was associated with higher ICU (40% versus 28%; p<0.0001) and hospital mortality (49% versus 41%; p=0.003). The overall rate of undiagnosed causes was 13%. After propensity score matching, bronchoscopy remained associated with increased risk of hospital mortality (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.08-1.81).Conclusions: Bronchoscopy was associated with improved diagnosis and changes in management, but also increased hospital mortality. Balancing risk and benefit in individualised cases should be investigated further.

Objective: We wished to explore the use, diagnostic capability and outcomes of bronchoscopy added to noninvasive testing in immunocompromised patients. In this setting, an inability to identify the cause of acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure is associated with worse outcome. Every effort should be made to obtain a diagnosis, either with noninvasive testing alone or combined with bronchoscopy. However, our understanding of the risks and benefits of bronchoscopy remains uncertain.Patients and methods: This was a pre-planned secondary analysis of Efraim, a prospective, multinational, observational study of 1611 immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). We compared patients with noninvasive testing only to those who had also received bronchoscopy by bivariate analysis and after propensity score matching.Results: Bronchoscopy was performed in 618 (39%) patients who were more likely to have haematological malignancy and a higher severity of illness score. Bronchoscopy alone achieved a diagnosis in 165 patients (27% adjusted diagnostic yield). Bronchoscopy resulted in a management change in 236 patients (38% therapeutic yield). Bronchoscopy was associated with worsening of respiratory status in 69 (11%) patients. Bronchoscopy was associated with higher ICU (40% versus 28%; p<0.0001) and hospital mortality (49% versus 41%; p=0.003). The overall rate of undiagnosed causes was 13%. After propensity score matching, bronchoscopy remained associated with increased risk of hospital mortality (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.08-1.81).Conclusions: Bronchoscopy was associated with improved diagnosis and changes in management, but also increased hospital mortality. Balancing risk and benefit in individualised cases should be investigated further.

OBJECTIVE: We wished to explore the use, diagnostic capability and outcomes of bronchoscopy added to noninvasive testing in immunocompromised patients. In this setting, an inability to identify the cause of acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure is associated with worse outcome. Every effort should be made to obtain a diagnosis, either with noninvasive testing alone or combined with bronchoscopy. However, our understanding of the risks and benefits of bronchoscopy remains uncertain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a pre-planned secondary analysis of Efraim, a prospective, multinational, observational study of 1611 immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). We compared patients with noninvasive testing only to those who had also received bronchoscopy by bivariate analysis and after propensity score matching. RESULTS: Bronchoscopy was performed in 618 (39%) patients who were more likely to have haematological malignancy and a higher severity of illness score. Bronchoscopy alone achieved a diagnosis in 165 patients (27% adjusted diagnostic yield). Bronchoscopy resulted in a management change in 236 patients (38% therapeutic yield). Bronchoscopy was associated with worsening of respiratory status in 69 (11%) patients. Bronchoscopy was associated with higher ICU (40% versus 28%; p<0.0001) and hospital mortality (49% versus 41%; p=0.003). The overall rate of undiagnosed causes was 13%. After propensity score matching, bronchoscopy remained associated with increased risk of hospital mortality (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.08-1.81). CONCLUSIONS: Bronchoscopy was associated with improved diagnosis and changes in management, but also increased hospital mortality. Balancing risk and benefit in individualised cases should be investigated further., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Thèse de pharmacie de Paris

Thèse de pharmacie de Paris